- Topic
My 1st question about the bible, who is God?
renita.payno wrote:
I read the 1st part of part II of some elohim link listed in a different thread. I was told that the Hebrew language doesn't have "he" or "she". Is this true? If it is, the 1st part of part II doesn't make sense to me.
The Hebrew language doesn't have 'it,' only 'he' and 'she'. Does that help?
renita.payno wrote:
I read the 1st part of part II of some elohim link listed in a different thread. I was told that the Hebrew language doesn't have "he" or "she". Is this true? If it is, the 1st part of part II doesn't make sense to me.
The Hebrew language doesn't have 'it,' only 'he' and 'she'. Does that help?
Which passage in Job are you looking up? I'll look too.
Which passage in Job are you looking up? I'll look too.
I am glad someone's reading that Elohim link! Thank you!
Here it is again for anyone who needs it to refer to:
part 1: http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm
part 2: http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim2.htm
part 3: http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim3.htm
You were reading the part about how a single person might use the word 'we.' Here's the part from the article:
<font color=”#351b00″ size=”3″>Job's companion, Bildad the Shuchite complains to Job, "Why have we been considered as an animal, as stupid (pl) in your eyes" (Job 18:3). When Bildad says "we" he is not referring to himself and his two companions. Were this the case he would have said, "Why have we been considered as animals". The fact that Bildad complains that he has been considered "an animal" in the singular proves he is only talking about himself. While Bildad is not in a royal court he uses the royal we because he is partaking in a royal court-like audience. Before being tested by God, Job had been a local nobleman with great wealth (Job 1:3). After losing everything, Job sat on the floor (like a king sits on his throne) surrounded by his companions who came to comfort him and give him advice (like a king's courtiers)</font>
Most English versions seem to use the word "cattle" instead of "animal." The author of the article is Jewish, so he is most likely using a Jewish version. Maybe loocpoc can tell us what it's called?
I checked with Strongs, and the word is "bahemah," which is defined "properly a dumb beast; especially any large quadruped or animal (often collectively): — beast, cattle." It does not have a plural ending.
It does seem to fit better here as a collective noun (cattle). I would expect that a Jewish scholar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehemiah_Gordon) would know what he's talking about regarding the Hebrew language, but interlinearbible.org is not working right now, so I can't double check it.
I am glad someone's reading that Elohim link! Thank you!
Here it is again for anyone who needs it to refer to:
part 1: http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm
part 2: http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim2.htm
part 3: http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim3.htm
You were reading the part about how a single person might use the word 'we.' Here's the part from the article:
<font color=”#351b00″ size=”3″>Job's companion, Bildad the Shuchite complains to Job, "Why have we been considered as an animal, as stupid (pl) in your eyes" (Job 18:3). When Bildad says "we" he is not referring to himself and his two companions. Were this the case he would have said, "Why have we been considered as animals". The fact that Bildad complains that he has been considered "an animal" in the singular proves he is only talking about himself. While Bildad is not in a royal court he uses the royal we because he is partaking in a royal court-like audience. Before being tested by God, Job had been a local nobleman with great wealth (Job 1:3). After losing everything, Job sat on the floor (like a king sits on his throne) surrounded by his companions who came to comfort him and give him advice (like a king's courtiers)</font>
Most English versions seem to use the word "cattle" instead of "animal." The author of the article is Jewish, so he is most likely using a Jewish version. Maybe loocpoc can tell us what it's called?
I checked with Strongs, and the word is "bahemah," which is defined "properly a dumb beast; especially any large quadruped or animal (often collectively): — beast, cattle." It does not have a plural ending.
It does seem to fit better here as a collective noun (cattle). I would expect that a Jewish scholar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehemiah_Gordon) would know what he's talking about regarding the Hebrew language, but interlinearbible.org is not working right now, so I can't double check it.
The article is kind of daunting when you first see it. But if you read it, I think it does have a lot of interesting things to say.
It's kind of like the books my kids read. They are getting bigger now, and can read chapter books. I'll give them a great book, but when they open it and see all the words (and no pictures :), they get overwhelmed and don't want to even start. But if they actually read it (or listen to me read it), they love it. So I guess the point is, don't get scared off. ๐
The article is kind of daunting when you first see it. But if you read it, I think it does have a lot of interesting things to say.
It's kind of like the books my kids read. They are getting bigger now, and can read chapter books. I'll give them a great book, but when they open it and see all the words (and no pictures :), they get overwhelmed and don't want to even start. But if they actually read it (or listen to me read it), they love it. So I guess the point is, don't get scared off. ๐
hey genny have you seen the website that the church of god created regarding slanderes of their truth
hey genny have you seen the website that the church of god created regarding slanderes of their truth
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.